Appellant's Appendix - Philip D. Stern

The colloquy between plaintiff's counsel and the judge
continued regarding the admission of monthly credit card
statements in defendant's name:
Judge: All right. And the existence of the
underlying debt would be reflected in the
business records of [WaMu]?
Counsel: Yes . . . .
Judge: All right. And Ms. Sharpe . . . is
not an employee of [WaMu]?
Counsel: [WaMu] doesn't exist anymore
. . . .
Judge: Well, Ms. Sharpe is not an employee
of [WaMu], so how could she be the proper
custodian of records for those bank records,
and support the admission of the bank
records under the hearsay 803 series?
. . . .
[T]he fact is that Ms. Sharpe is not a
business custodian of [WaMu], and,
therefore, she's not properly qualified to
authenticate the underlying business
records. The underlying business records
are not authenticated, they [sic] cannot
rely upon them as a hearsay exception to
establish the underlying debt.
Plaintiff's counsel stated his intention to "proceed without
admitting the statements into evidence," and "leave it to the
defendant to introduce them into evidence." The judge
responded, "He doesn't have to testify."
Defendant moved for
dismissal, but the judge denied the request as premature.
We
discern from an unrecorded recess reflected in the transcript
3
A-2062-10T4
26a